Indian Independence: Was non-violence worth it?

A look back at whether India's non-violent freedom struggle was effective for ordinary Indians.

 

In retrospect was India's non-violent freedom struggle good or bad? Many decades have passed since India won it's independence from Britain. Since then the Indian independence movement has been an inspiration for some non-violent freedom and civil rights movements around the world. Politicians in India have milked the associated imagery to define vote banks. Foreign dignitaries who visit India praise Gandhi and India visit Gandhi's Samadhi, or memorial, in Delhi. But, has it been good for India in the long run? It's time to take a look at this story from a layman's point of view instead of a historian's or a self serving politician's point of view.

The good

Soft power story

 

Shashi Tharoor has been talking himself blue in the face about the soft power of India across the globe. He argues that the the story a nation has to tell has a direct impact on the soft power or influence of that nation. His argument is compelling and he makes it well. But, how many people know the story of India? More importantly, how many people even care? Most people either think of India as a job usurping filthy land of beggars, some mystical place where people go to get high or as is the case with multinational firms, a land of opportunity to make a quick buck off. This story is not that compelling. The non-violence story, which should be the most attractive part of the story, gets lost in all the blood that is shed within the borders of India in the name of religion, caste, ethnicity, language and lately resources like water. Soft power is more soft than power.

 

History of non-violence

 

There is a long history of non-violence in India. The Chipko movement, the Buddhism and Jainism stories and the fact that the Dravidian Indus valley civilization had no standing army and did not use weapons, speak to this non-violent history. But, the non-violence story can easily be overstated. For most of it's history, India has been a divided, bickering and violent land like most countries and lands. India has just had more transcendent moments in it's history than most other lands have had. People who point to the non-violent movements in India choose to look at the good within the history of India. But, non-violent struggles are better called one-way violence struggles or principled struggles against tyranny. Calling these movements non-violent is dangerous because there is nothing to be gained from denying that they were violent. Even though calling these movements non-violent does accords them some dignity in people's eyes, there is no dignity in willingly being physically and mentally abused.

 

Inspiration to other movements

 

The American civil rights movement and a few other movements have be inspired by the Indian freedom struggle. In this case any other option may have hurt the cause of African Americans who are and were a minority. A violent struggle against a majority would have hurt African Americans more. Besides a good part of the American majority were sympathetic to the civil rights movement. Hence a non-violent struggle was a more effective option. Also, the American civil rights movement was an internal struggle. It was not a separatist independence movement.

The bad

Deification of the “Mahatma” Gandhi

Gandhi was a great leader and a lot of what he said that I would agree with. But, the a good part of what he did was highly questionable. His claim of being a secular person while leading meetings with a Hindu prayer or drinking his own urine have nothing to do with being a Mahatma. His demeanor and dress created an impression that he cared about the ordinary Indian. The fact is that he used Indians for cannon fodder. He favoured a non-violent struggle while Indians were killed in mass famines orchestrated to feed Londoners by snatching food from Indian mouths. The last of these famines during WWII killed 4 million Indians. Indians are too ready to raise people to mythical or even divine status. The nauseating reverence accorded to MK Gandhi has held Indians back from a more effective leadership.

 

The myth of a non-violent struggle

 

The Indian independence movement was violent. It was the British who were exceedingly violent towards the Indians. The British killed many Indians in police action, massacres like the Jalianwala Bagh massacres, starved Indians in “famines” by snatching food from farmers. Any side that wins a war by losing more lives than the side that lost the war has won a strange victory indeed. Isn't that the definition of a Pyrrhic victory? Wasn't the point to win a freedom that would save the people from suffering under a foreign power? How does getting your people killed in millions become a victory? The equivalent would be, if when threatened by bandits a person were to get a number of their family killed by protesting non-violently and then claim a victory after the bandits were too flee with all their wealth and then not complain about being killed and robbed. How is this non-violence? Isn't this the definition of cowardice and spinelessness?

 

Inaction is the right answer

 

The majority of Indians did not join the freedom struggle. They sat on the sideline for most of the freedom struggle treating the struggle as a spectator sport. Now everybody is surprised that the Indian people are exploited by politicians and anyone else that cares to exploit them. One unintended result of the satyagrahas of the non-cooperation movement is the modern day "bandhs" or strikes of India. The Indian people do not understand that non-cooperation was for meant for the British and not for Indians. The satyagrahas have now transformed themselves into “bandhs” in independent India. Bandhs do more damage to India than any good. The bandh culture is the direct result of the freedom movement.

 

The myth of British given independence

 

The general impression among people Indian or otherwise is that the non-violent struggle was effective because it was the British that had a sense of fairness. While it might well have been true that the British people had this sense of fairness, the British authorities certainly did not share this sense. Least of all their leaders such as Churchill who called Indians “black monkeys” and spoke disparagingly of the idea of India and killed millions of Indians in despicable ways. Churchill spoke of Hitler as an evil man and in at least some ways far exceeded the cruelty of the Nazis and Hitler. Clearly, though Churchill was a good leader of the British he was not a visionary and was an evil man. His successors had no choice but to give in to Indian demands because the overhanging threat of a violent backlash would have certainly led to the death of many British citizens and soldiers.

 

Panchsheel meet punch in the gut

 

The idealism of the independence struggle carried over into India's foreign policy with the respect to it's neighbours through the implementation of the ancient Panchsheel doctrine. The doctrine led to a treaty with China in 1954 which was not worth the paper that it was written on by 1962. The Chinese launched what they called “slap in the face” war. A quick war that China won and, of course, India lost some territory. This has further led to China implementing it's Pearl necklace policy and expanding it's reach around India. In a further blow to Panchsheel, all the major neighbours of India are pro-Chinese now. The exceptions seems to be Bhutan and the Maldives. So, much for non-violent people being likable. People like winners who exert themselves. Don't even kid yourselves thinking that moral stances and soft stories mean anything to people.

       As the Simon and Garfunkel song goes “I'd rather be a hammer than a nail. I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail.” or something to that effect. Soft power and a good story that leads to Oscars for the British cast and director is all is all well and good. I like the movie myself. But, when push comes to shove it has not and will not do you any good.

 

      In conclusion, violence is definitely to be avoided. But, not at all costs. It is sometimes necessary to use violence. Understanding the this fine line is tough, especially for Indians who use violence in frustration rather than as a tool. If you are trying to protect your people from a tyrant or a tyrannical government, using violence is entirely justified. Just as Americans used violence to oppose the British whom they had more in common with that the Indians did. Indians using violence would have been both justified and more effective. During the freedom struggle, the British chose to engage with Gandhi and the Indian National Congress because if they did not they would have had to face a few hundred million angry Indians. If that threat of violence were not looming, the British would have done away with Gandhi and his ilk. The British came away the better of the two parties. During the two world wars , they used Indian soldiers to defend their country. They used Indian money to fund the defense of the British Isles. What the British did to Indians in man-made “famines” was analogous to cannibalism. They snatched food from poor farmers to feed their people. Even a war ravaged Britain came away better than a newly independent India just as a parasite comes away better than it's host. This is not to say that the British are bad people, though it may seem like I made a pretty good case for this view. The British Indian administration was a classic case of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think the British improved the lot of their people by using us to their ends, with the active help of a lot of Indians. Today, nobody thinks any less of Britain as a country for doing this and they are called a great country with a great history. While India remains a basket case in spite of economic growth that is now faltering. We could learn from that. If India had been violent, people would have forgotten and forgiven that too. There will always be “us” and “them” even if every country in the whole world were to transform into multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial melting pots. The threat of violence is a necessary deterrent. Indians through our long history and philosophies have understood the benefits of non-violence. It's time to understand the use of violence as a tool for the protection and advancement of Indians and not as a tool to divide Indians against each other. The U.S. is the best example of how to use violence to an end. The U.S. Has honed the use of violence to a fine art. I know this sounds cynical. But, a violent struggle would have ended the British occupation quicker and put an end to the British Empire quicker. This does not make for a great soft power story. But, who cares? India would have been better off for it.